Title: I think the “95 Theses” idea is a very clever comparison: a new kind of literacy that allows more personal knowledge and relationships instead of one intermediated by an often-greedy monopoly.

Indeed, a lot of what they’re saying seems to me the continuation of centuries-long trends. But that could be observer bias.

7. Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy–except that we want an IA as well–how do we deal with this tension between the organic form and the hierarchic one? I think that so far we seem to be having different genres, conventions, that help us make sense of both–e.g. what organization do we expect from blogs? from e-commerce sites? from wikipedia? from a library or other database focused site? etc.

I would agree that most of these have come to fruition (Y2K) but there are some such as 86 which talk about knowing your “target market” that are still relevant. Again I am speaking from a bias viewpoint in healthcare because of my work as a nurse; but some hospitals I have worked in are just beginning to allow their nursing staff to have access to the web at work. I often found it interesting that as a nurse we’re expected by our organizations to deliver top notch quality care that is based upon current evidenced based practices, however, administrators were reluctant to provide the most accessible information there is through the internet. In the meantime some staff have to rely on outdated books or journal that happen to be laying around the nursing unit. Some organizations I believe are still stuck on using the intranet just for administrative purposes and have not come to realize the full power of the dark side.

In some ways the most basic question, I think, is whether there is a Malthusian limit to our ability to understand information or whether we can adapt to more and more. On the limit side there is the fact that we have the same cells and all that that we always have had, human nature is what it is, and even if medications can improve our capacity for learning and working (consider the accounts of students using Ritalin to improve their study efforts, then imagine if you could target changes to small areas of the brain) will they always be limited by the biological substrate?

On the other hand there is the fact that we have been learning more and more over time. Consider that a thousand years ago a master’s degree involved studying the quadrivium, which included arithmetic (seriously: see an example at
http://mathdl.maa.org/convergence/1/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=1293&bodyId=1426 ) and Euclid. So a few 20-year-olds knew as much arithmetic as half of 10-year-olds today, partly because of improved technology (arabic numerals) and wider access to information (printing press). Similarly, there is much debate about changes that literacy has on individual humans and on societies ( http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002997.php ). Imagine how much greater a difference more advanced technologies could have on what we can “handle”!

So I think it’s an open question how long this rapid growth can continue, and also whether such growth will stratify society further. (If people in upper classes are designing a new level of information, what happens to the people in the lower classes? Previous development has often allowed the lower classes to experience improved QOL, but lately in the U.S. we are seeing e.g. larger income spreads.) Also, will some combination of the two possibilities occur (unlimited growth built on limited substrates requiring a break into some new way of knowing), leading to a Vinge-Kurzweil information/technology singularity?

I have to agree with Holli on this one - as I read through it, it seemed like most of the statements were as plain as statement #3 - “Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.” Very prophetic.

I did find #13 somewhat interesting. I think this statement is evidenced by things like Fortune magazine’s top 100 employers lists. It’s as if employment is a product that can be reviewed.